First Amendment

Sooooo, I am a lawyer... sort of. I went to law school anyway. I am no genius but I did get on of my infrequent "A" s in constitutional law. Nothing too big but i liked it and studying the Constitution and how it was inrupreted was kind of cool. The textbooks at the time and most case law seemed to have the same theme that the framers of the document were brilliant and that they had created a strong, flexible form of government that was one of the wonders of the free world. I remember at that time I was solicited to join the Federalist Society which was just starting up. I was a conservative Republican, suspicious of the central government and believing strongly in individual rights and being less concerned but still defensive of State rights. But I did not join. The people seemed very idealogical and rigid.

Accodring to the geniuses at Wikipedia, “The Society asserts that it "is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be." Well that sounded pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society Unfortunately what it has become is the place which screams that THEY are literal inturpreters of the Constitution and that our liberal judiciary, staffed out of liberal law schools have been reading all kinds of things into the Constitution and that the document (almost creepily like the Bible) is the inherrent word and cannot be deviated from. These people now have the 5 vote majority on the Supreme Court. More importantanly people like Scalia would tell you that any idiot could tell you what everything in it literally means. So long as they agree with him. This majority is scary because they are brilliant intellectuals and great writers (Clearance Thomas being the exception in both cases).

They have a new kid on the court but she replaced another non Federalist judge. Sotomeyer got to hear her first oral arguments from the guys who made the Hillary Clinton bashing movie and refused to disclose who was paying for it. Their argument is that requiring them to tell violates their right to free speech. They are challenging campaign laws which violate their right to free speech. This right allegedly arises from the First Amendment which states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This right to free speech is fundamental. It has been read by liberals and conservatives as a freedom of expression. But that is not what it says. I call upon the Federalists to explain to me where it says it. I believe it.... but I believe it because it is a changable, flexible document which gets read and applied based on our realities as the American people. The majority on the Supreme Court does not. It is black letter and then if it is unclear you try and discern intent (hah!) I have two questions.
1. Where does the Constitution say that money is speech?
2. Where does the Constitution say that Corporations (who are creations of the individual States and not a creature of the Federal government) are to be allowed all the rights of a U.S. Citizen?

First point 1. The Constitution does not say that money is speech. Here are our common definitions of speech:
address: the act of delivering a formal spoken communication to an audience; "he listened to an address on minor Roman poets"
(language) communication by word of mouth; "his speech was garbled"; "he uttered harsh language"; "he recorded the spoken language of the streets"
something spoken; "he could hear them uttering merry speeches"
the exchange of spoken words; "they were perfectly comfortable together without speech"
manner of speaking: your characteristic style or manner of expressing yourself orally; "his manner of speaking was quite abrupt"; "her speech was barren of southernisms"; "I detected a slight accent in his speech"
lecture: a lengthy rebuke; "a good lecture was my father's idea of discipline"; "the teacher gave him a talking to"
actor's line: words making up the dialogue of a play; "the actor forgot his speech"
language: the mental faculty or power of vocal communication; "language sets homo sapiens apart from all other animals"


No where in these generally accepted definitions of speech dowe define money or any THING as speech. But our courts have said that. The infer this from the "freedom of expression" which is also nit in the Constitution but is certainly implied by the document although I think the framers of the document would have abhorred this idea. Freedom of speech being important then to Democracy and freedom of expression (men wearing women's clothes in public, toting a John 3:16 sign at football games etc...) probably not having the same gravity. But in light of changing thoughts on these things I am all for reading freedom expression into the Constitution... but that ain't what the document says. So certainly if those other things are freedom of expression, then where we spend and donate out money is freedom of expression (it is not speech) and falls under this logical extension and evolution of our Constitution.

Question 2 is why should corporations have all the same rights as free men(and women thanks to the 14th Amendment)? Seriously, why? Corporations are not mentioned in this document. The idea of not for profits, special interest groups and PACs would have been laughable at the time. Certain a free, white, propertied MALE should be able to put his money and capital anywhere he wants. They fought for these rights. They were deeply suspicious of gvernment and corporate power and that was one of the influences they reviled and fled. The Dutch East India Corporation, the first mega corp was deeply reviled by these framers of our democracy. An excellent Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company. Later our states allowed the corporations to file (there are no Federal Corporate Charters) and we started to call these corporations "persons" but that fiction is selectively applied and the right to free speech is yet another case. I am willing to give corporations the right to Speak and extend this to all of these entities that are not people. People and organizations should be able to speak and protest but the Freedom of Expression? Why shouln't the government be able to regulate how these state bastardized "people" get to effect elections? Especially our national elections? If your going to lend your money for a cause disclose it, in the cases of companies regulate it. They are not People. Companies to do not have a bill of rights... unless we want to allow groups of like minded people to bear arms in private armies... but perhaps that is where this is going.

American people seem to agree with an overwhelming voice that we need to take money out of politics. At least that is what everyone I talk to... even the dreaded @clamstorm from Twitter agree that is a problem. Everyone might have a different idea as to why but in America money and power (stealing from Forest Gump) go together like peas and carrots. Where money is raised there are deals. The NRA and Acorn do not raise and donate money based on a politicians over all quality but on how he votes on their issues. With corporations and for profit companies the connection is even darker. Mc Cain/Feingold a bipartisan law signed by President Bush tried to limit this. It has failed so it is in front of the Supreme Court on the silly Hillary Clinton movie and the FCC banning it because the producers would not disclose their funding. Having the FCC determine speech is unacceptable without guidance from Congress and it might be unacceptable no matter what but Congress needs to deal with this but rather then dealing with limiting campaign contributions how about ONLY limiting corporate donations and how about a Federal statement that these corporations, which are creations of each of the individual States, do not have all the rights that you and I have.

If Congress does not do it the Supreme Court is going to over rule Mc Cain/Feingold in the worst way possible, in bits and pieces and towards the Federalist Society ideology. Watch what goes on this session in the Supreme Court with interest. Congress will maintain the status quo. The Court might help them. In the mean time... ask questions. The Constitution is pretty brilliant but it is not divine. Lets not treat it as infallible...lets treat it as brilliant and evolving.